Im Panicking Because I Forgot To Take My...
Society & Culture0 min ago
Illegal "Referendum"?
218 Answers
https:/
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Answers
All you English"
14:46 Wed 03rd Feb 2021
Still with the ongoing but meaningless references to ‘promises’ and ‘pledges’ in answers above!
I'm still waiting for a response to the question I posed in my earlier response at 16.59. Here it is again...
“Who in the SNP during 2014 ever made any commitment that the party would wait for a generation or a lifetime before asking for another referendum?”
In that earlier contribution, I myself revealed exactly where that notion came from; namely, as no more than passing comments made by Salmond during a TV programme! He made no promises; he made no pledges; he created no new SNP policy about waiting for decades before raising the independence matter again.
Why would he have done, given that the dream of independence is the SNP’s very foundation?
I'm still waiting for a response to the question I posed in my earlier response at 16.59. Here it is again...
“Who in the SNP during 2014 ever made any commitment that the party would wait for a generation or a lifetime before asking for another referendum?”
In that earlier contribution, I myself revealed exactly where that notion came from; namely, as no more than passing comments made by Salmond during a TV programme! He made no promises; he made no pledges; he created no new SNP policy about waiting for decades before raising the independence matter again.
Why would he have done, given that the dream of independence is the SNP’s very foundation?
What Salmond was doing was planting an idea in people's minds that it was now or never. He was trying to push people towards a vote for his desired outcome.
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that he did that knowing he could always try, try and try again if it didn't work. Surely no politician could be so deliberately deceptive.
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that he did that knowing he could always try, try and try again if it didn't work. Surely no politician could be so deliberately deceptive.
//the situation is not analogous with the Brexit vote.//
No it isn't. The United Kingdom is a single sovereign state with a single currency, a single fiscal policy, a single constitution, a single defence policy, a single diplomatic service, a single foreign policy, a single Head of State, a single government and (almost) a single language. The EU is none of those things (though it likes to portray the effect that it is) and leaving it cannot be compared to breaking away from a sovereign nation.
No it isn't. The United Kingdom is a single sovereign state with a single currency, a single fiscal policy, a single constitution, a single defence policy, a single diplomatic service, a single foreign policy, a single Head of State, a single government and (almost) a single language. The EU is none of those things (though it likes to portray the effect that it is) and leaving it cannot be compared to breaking away from a sovereign nation.
// Is there ever any point in holding a referendum at all, then? //
It depends, is my unhelpful short answer.
In a post that it seems I was drafting but never finished, I also mentioned the forgotten referendum of the last decade, the one on whether we should switch to the Alternative Vote or stick with FPTP, held in 2011. In any case, I have no wish to revisit the question posed in 2011, but my point would be that it was a curious exercise from start to finish. It posed a very narrow question -- a choice between two electoral systems out of dozens -- but seems to have been used to address public sentiment on any kind of electoral reform. It also posed a question, for that matter, that even its proponents weren't that interested it. The LibDems will have wanted a proportional voting system, which AV is not, but apparently settled on that as a compromise. It also didn't really get that many people engaged -- turnout was 40%, or thereabouts, as compared to the whopping 85% who voted in the 2014 IndyRef, or the 72% who voted in 2016.
My real point is that the 2011 Referendum was held, not to resolve the issue, but to kill the issue. Most politicians were actively against it, and I'm fairly sure this also explains partially the choice of alternative offered -- different enough that it can be used to represent all electoral reform, whilst also not really addressing any of the concerns of reformers; thus, it was likely to be rejected, and it serves to preserve the status quo for a generation or so, that of course suits in particular the Tories and Labour to the favour of anybody else.
This is also true of the initial Brexit vote. The referendum in 2016 did, in fact, follow a few minor tweaks to our relationship with the EU -- it hardly matters what these were, now, and in any case they clearly didn't come close to addressing the concerns of EUsceptics -- and was also offered in part during the election campaign of 2015 to try and head off UKIP's challenge. It was offered not to resolve the issue of our EU Membership, then, but to kill it. In 2011 that succeeded; in 2016 it failed spectacularly.
The same, I would argue, is also true of the 2014 Referendum. Pressure was building in Scotland, partly due to two majority victories on the bounce for the SNP, and it seemed politically expedient to test the waters and undercut their drive for Independence by giving the SNP what they wanted -- it is obvious, however, that there was no desire for the Referendum to be successful on the part of the people who needed to allow it.
The same could also be held to be true of the only other Referendum in our history, the one in 1975, that Labour offered in order to strengthen their campaign in the previous election. I'm not as familiar with the history of that one, but it seems likely that it was also proposed in part to address divides within Labour itself, just as the 2016 one addressed Tory divides.
All of this leads to the conclusion that Referendums in this country are, and always have been, conducted dishonestly, and never with the intention of deciding the issue in question. As long as that remains true, then the only real "point" to Referendums, in the UK at least, is to try and hold one Party or the other, or a Coalition, together.
That shouldn't be the end of the story, of course (TBC...)
It depends, is my unhelpful short answer.
In a post that it seems I was drafting but never finished, I also mentioned the forgotten referendum of the last decade, the one on whether we should switch to the Alternative Vote or stick with FPTP, held in 2011. In any case, I have no wish to revisit the question posed in 2011, but my point would be that it was a curious exercise from start to finish. It posed a very narrow question -- a choice between two electoral systems out of dozens -- but seems to have been used to address public sentiment on any kind of electoral reform. It also posed a question, for that matter, that even its proponents weren't that interested it. The LibDems will have wanted a proportional voting system, which AV is not, but apparently settled on that as a compromise. It also didn't really get that many people engaged -- turnout was 40%, or thereabouts, as compared to the whopping 85% who voted in the 2014 IndyRef, or the 72% who voted in 2016.
My real point is that the 2011 Referendum was held, not to resolve the issue, but to kill the issue. Most politicians were actively against it, and I'm fairly sure this also explains partially the choice of alternative offered -- different enough that it can be used to represent all electoral reform, whilst also not really addressing any of the concerns of reformers; thus, it was likely to be rejected, and it serves to preserve the status quo for a generation or so, that of course suits in particular the Tories and Labour to the favour of anybody else.
This is also true of the initial Brexit vote. The referendum in 2016 did, in fact, follow a few minor tweaks to our relationship with the EU -- it hardly matters what these were, now, and in any case they clearly didn't come close to addressing the concerns of EUsceptics -- and was also offered in part during the election campaign of 2015 to try and head off UKIP's challenge. It was offered not to resolve the issue of our EU Membership, then, but to kill it. In 2011 that succeeded; in 2016 it failed spectacularly.
The same, I would argue, is also true of the 2014 Referendum. Pressure was building in Scotland, partly due to two majority victories on the bounce for the SNP, and it seemed politically expedient to test the waters and undercut their drive for Independence by giving the SNP what they wanted -- it is obvious, however, that there was no desire for the Referendum to be successful on the part of the people who needed to allow it.
The same could also be held to be true of the only other Referendum in our history, the one in 1975, that Labour offered in order to strengthen their campaign in the previous election. I'm not as familiar with the history of that one, but it seems likely that it was also proposed in part to address divides within Labour itself, just as the 2016 one addressed Tory divides.
All of this leads to the conclusion that Referendums in this country are, and always have been, conducted dishonestly, and never with the intention of deciding the issue in question. As long as that remains true, then the only real "point" to Referendums, in the UK at least, is to try and hold one Party or the other, or a Coalition, together.
That shouldn't be the end of the story, of course (TBC...)
A clear factual error in my last, before I go on: the four cited referendums are *not* the only ones in our history. There have also been referendums on forming the Welsh Assembly (1979, 1997, 2011); two more in Scotland on forming the Parliament there (1979, 1997); two in Northern Ireland (1973 on rejoining the Republic, 1998 on the Good Friday Agreement); and a couple on forming devolved regional Parliaments in London (1998) and North-East England (2004).
The four I mention undoubtedly grab the most attention and are the most relevant; although the 1973 referendum in Northern Ireland also seems relevant to my point: it resulted in an overwhelming rejection of the case for Reunification, but only because most of those in favour boycotted the poll; it seems that the reason for calling it was in large part to send a political message to the IRA that they had no, or not enough, support for their political and terrorist aims.
The four I mention undoubtedly grab the most attention and are the most relevant; although the 1973 referendum in Northern Ireland also seems relevant to my point: it resulted in an overwhelming rejection of the case for Reunification, but only because most of those in favour boycotted the poll; it seems that the reason for calling it was in large part to send a political message to the IRA that they had no, or not enough, support for their political and terrorist aims.
-- FPTP, or "plurality voting" -- each voter picks one, and only one, person to vote for, highest number of votes wins.
-- AV, or preferential voting -- each voter ranks candidates, as many as they choose, in order of preference. 1st-preference votes are tallied. If no one candidate receives 50%+1 of the vote, the last-placed candidate is eliminated, and voters who preferred that candidate have their second-preference votes added to the remaining candidates' totals. And so on, until a candidate passes 50%+1, running to 3rd, 4th preference as necessary.
-- AV, or preferential voting -- each voter ranks candidates, as many as they choose, in order of preference. 1st-preference votes are tallied. If no one candidate receives 50%+1 of the vote, the last-placed candidate is eliminated, and voters who preferred that candidate have their second-preference votes added to the remaining candidates' totals. And so on, until a candidate passes 50%+1, running to 3rd, 4th preference as necessary.
